Could Sonographer Collect Benefits after Traumatizing Exposure to Man’s Genitals?

What Do You Think?

A case involving a man who allegedly exposed his genitals to a hospital sonographer when there was no medical reason to do so illustrates how important it is for employers to articulate a solid defense (assuming there is one) at the commissioner level–well before the case reaches a courthouse.

In that case, the sonographer had worked for the hospital for 20 years. One day, she was performing an ultrasound of a patient’s leg when he began to press her for a date. Though she said she was in a relationship, he wasn’t giving up and continued with inappropriate comments. At one point, he unexpectedly and unnecessarily exposed his penis and testicles to her. She promptly threw a towel over them.

After that episode, the sonographer began to suffer from anxiety and PTSD symptoms and filed a workers’ compensation claim. She indicated that it had been about 10 years since she last experienced that type of harassment. 

The WC commission green-lighted benefits, and the employer appealed. The employer argued that the incident was not sufficiently shocking or frightening to create a compensable injury.

In Virginia, a claimant may recover workers' compensation benefits for a purely psychological injury if the injury is causally related to a sudden shock or fright arising out of and in the course of the employment. The incident must be one the claimant would not have expected to occur during her work duties.

Was the sonographer’s claim compensable?

A. No. Given that she was a sonographer, she should have expected to see private areas of patients' bodies.

B. Yes. The exposure was not part of the medical procedure, and she had not experienced anything like that episode at work for at least a decade.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Inova Health Systems v. Nguyen, No. 0906-24-1 (Va. Ct. App. 08/12/25), which found the employer suffered sufficient shock or fright to render the claim compensable.

Need to know about psychological injuries? You need Simply Research

This was essentially a case about the standard of review the court had to follow, the appeals court said. The court explained that it had to affirm the commission’s decision if  that decision was supported by credible evidence. In other words, it would be very difficult for the employer to win on appeal.

Further, this was not a situation where a patient exposed his genitals as a part of a medical procedure. That type of situation was vastly different from “the male patient's ‘brutish behavior at issue here’—where the man ‘exposed his genitalia suddenly, and after the claimant rebuffed his inappropriate comments,’” the court said. 

Nor was this an event that fell within the claimant’s job description. Rather, the evidence indicated the man exposed himself for his own salacious and exhibitionistic motives, according to the court.

Because there was credible evidence supporting the commission’s decision, the court had to affirm it."[U]nder this specific set of circumstances, the Commission here was not plainly wrong in finding that [the sonographer] suffered a compensable psychological injury that was causally related to a sudden or unexpected ‘shock or fright’ arising out of and in the course of her employment,” the court said. 

The court affirmed the commission’s award of benefits.

Share This Article: